Skip to comments.
Missouri Gun Poll
Missouri Lawyer's Weekly ^
| October 25, 2003
Posted on 10/25/2003 1:42:50 PM PDT by Shooter 2.5
Freep the poll.
http://www.molawyersweekly.com
TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; US: Missouri
KEYWORDS: bang; banglist; carry; concealed; missouri; weapon
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-23 next last
Here's another poll:
http://www.molawyersweekly.com
To: Luke Skyfreeper; Joe Brower
Another poll to Freep.
To: *bang_list; Lurker; Dead Corpse; Maelstrom
Another poll to Freep.
Comment #4 Removed by Moderator
To: archy; Redbob; Copernicus
Another poll to Freep.
To: Shooter 2.5
To: CHICAGOFARMER; riverrunner
Freep the poll.
Thanks.
To: Shooter 2.5
Lawyers Weekly Web Poll Results |
|
|
Do you agree with a St. Louis Circuit Court ruling that said Missouri's new concealed carry law is unconstitutional? |
Yes, there are constitutional problems with the concealed carry legislation. |
![](/images/pollblu.gif) |
22% |
No, the statute should be permitted to go into effect. |
![](/images/pollblu.gif) |
78% |
Total Votes: |
316 |
|
This poll is not scientific and reflects the opinions of only those internet users who have chosen to participate. Back to Missouri Lawyers Weekly Discuss this and other issues on the Lawyers Weekly Online Forum |
To: 2timothy3.16
bump
9
posted on
10/25/2003 2:50:20 PM PDT
by
Dr.Zoidberg
(I've been making fine jewelry for years, apparently.)
To: Shooter 2.5
|
Do you agree with a St. Louis Circuit Court ruling that said Missouri's new concealed carry law is unconstitutional? |
Yes, there are constitutional problems with the concealed carry legislation. |
![](/images/pollblu.gif) |
21% |
No, the statute should be permitted to go into effect. |
![](/images/pollblu.gif) |
79% |
Total Votes: |
348 |
|
10
posted on
10/25/2003 2:52:39 PM PDT
by
facedown
(Armed in the Heartland)
To: Shooter 2.5
What do they claim is the constitutional problem?
11
posted on
10/25/2003 2:54:48 PM PDT
by
Sloth
("I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!" -- Jacobim Mugatu, 'Zoolander')
To: Agitate; StarCMC; TheEngineer; Jesse from Missouri; FairWitness; deadmenvote; El Conservador; ...
Missouri Ping.
12
posted on
10/25/2003 2:55:31 PM PDT
by
Missouri
To: Shooter 2.5
There ARE Constitutional problems with it. The State Constitution cannot take away a Right protected by the Federal Constitution. Period.
As for over turing prior Missouri Law, there is no State Constitutional conflict. More guns in the hand of Law Abiding Citizens is a GOOD thing. I will never be able to fully approve of licensing laws. Especially since we have places like Germany to warn us about what happens when we do register. And Britain. And Australia. What they have attempted to do in Canada...
You get the idea.
It's a Right. I don't need anyones "permission" to excersize it.
These "baby steps" sure as hell better not turn into "jack boots".
13
posted on
10/25/2003 3:03:22 PM PDT
by
Dead Corpse
(For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
To: Sloth
Missouri: That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons. Art. I, § 23 (enacted 1945).
I think they're claiming since it's not spelled out in the Constitution, the legislation couldn't be enacted.
Or some BS like that.
To: Shooter 2.5
That IS B.S. BTW, why do I think the same folks don't take this part to seriously: That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property... shall not be questioned?
15
posted on
10/25/2003 3:31:31 PM PDT
by
Sloth
("I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!" -- Jacobim Mugatu, 'Zoolander')
To: Shooter 2.5
"(enacted 1945)." Anyone know what the wording was before the 1945 enactment?
To: Shooter 2.5
Freeped! 84% to 16% -- 452 Votes.
To: Eastbound
Missouri: That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons. Art. I, § 23 (enacted 1945).
1820: "That the people have the right peaceably to assemble for their common good, and to apply to those vested with the powers of government for redress of grievances by petition or remonstrance; and that their right to bear arms in defence of themselves and of the State cannot be questioned." Art. XIII, § 3.
1865: Same as above, but with "the lawful authority of the State" instead of "the State." Art. I, § 8.
1875: "That the right of no citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power, when thereto legally summoned, shall be called into question; but nothing herein contained is intended to justify the practice of wearing concealed weapons." Art. II, § 17.
To: Shooter 2.5
Thanks, Shooter. A perfect example how things get morphed. Reminds me of "Animal Farm."
The next change will probably look like this:
Missouri: That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, (*Insert change here) or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons. Art. I, § 23 (enacted 1945).
*INSERT: "except on days that fall on Saturday and Sunday in each month and other days that fall on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday of each week;" (2004)
I think the 1820 clause was sufficient. Who gave gummint the right to question the rights of the people of MO? But then, I think that happened in every state. New Mexico is similar.
To: Eastbound; Dead Corpse
20
posted on
10/26/2003 12:16:48 AM PDT
by
Travis McGee
(----- www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com -----)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-23 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson